Is This YouTube Video Really Unsuitable for Viewers Under 18?

Our video on the Las Vegas shooting was age-restricted, deemed not suitable for viewers under 18.

By Michael Brown Published on October 6, 2017

There’s never a dull moment in our dealings with YouTube. In the latest twist, our video commentary on “What God Is Saying through the Vegas Massacre” has been age-restricted, deemed not suitable for viewers under 18. Really?

I can almost guarantee that there are millions of videos on YouTube that are not age-restricted that are far more graphic than this video. Why did ours get singled out?

When we appealed YouTube’s decision, they sent this reply: “Thank you for submitting your video appeal to YouTube. After further review, we’ve determined that while your video does not violate our Community Guidelines, it may not be appropriate for a general audience. We have therefore age-restricted your video.”

Can anyone say “completely arbitrary”?

Continued Scrutiny

If you have any question about my perspective, take a few minutes and watch the video for yourself. It starts with footage from the massacre, but there’s no blood, gore or profanity. You hear the gun shots, you hear people screaming, and you see them scrambling. That’s it.

As for my commentary, the message is simple. We need the Lord! America cannot be great if America is not good, and we cannot be good without God. We’re sick and hurting, and He’s ready to heal and help. Why should this be age-restricted?

How many videos with inappropriate lyrics, sensual images, profanity or violence are unrestricted on YouTube?

Let’s encourage YouTube when they do right and hold their feet to the fire when they do wrong.

Back in August, the vast majority of our 900+ videos were demonetized, labeled as “not suitable for all advertisers.”

Our whole channel had been flagged. To this day, almost without exception, the moment we post a video, before anyone has viewed it, it is flagged as “not suitable for all advertisers.” This means that we have to request a manual review for each video and hope for the best.

Unfortunately, for the first few weeks, almost all our videos dealing with controversial subjects (including abortion, homosexuality, and Islam) were deemed unsuitable for advertising after review.

And then something odd happened. We started to notice that many of our flagged videos were unflagged, without explanation or notice. Suddenly they were no longer “unsuitable.”

A Step in the Right Direction?

Then, about two weeks ago, some of our videos addressing controversial videos started to get approved after review, again, without any explanation. So, one week, a controversial video failed the review process; the next week, a similar video passed the review process.

This was obviously a step in the right direction, but based on what criteria? Is YouTube making a course correction? Are they addressing some serious imbalances? And are they using any objective criteria? If so, what is it?

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Many have asked me to keep them posted on YouTube’s dealings with our videos, which I’m happy to do. But no sooner did I plan to post a positive update than our Vegas video was age-restricted.

What’s coming next? Stay tuned for the latest, breaking news.

For now, let’s encourage YouTube when they do right and hold their feet to the fire when they do wrong.

And let me know your thoughts on our video. Is it inappropriate for viewers under 18?

 

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Paul

    Which is it you actually care about, censorship or your ad revenue?

    • Janey

      I’m sure it’s both. And what’s wrong with that? He’s never tried to hide that the loss of ads causes them to lose needed finances. And also, at the same time it is very troubling that certain groups would be marked for censorship.

      • Paul

        His concerns about censorship emerged when it negatively affected his ad revenue. I agree it is troubling that certain groups are censored, but it’s the money or lack thereof that got his attention.

        • His concerns about censorship emerged when Google began censoring him. Granted, the manner in which they first did it was through de-monetizing his videos, but if you read what he’s written about it, you’ll find that the censorship has been his greater concern. As with the video he wrote about here.

          • Paul

            Michael made it about money, I’m simply calling him on it.

          • Michael L Brown

            Paul, I’m not sure what your point is. Censorship is always the big issue, but loss of ad revenue is an issue as well, since the funds are used for more video production. We’re a non-profit ministry, so any funds that come in are used to help us reach more people and give away more free material. Not sure why you’d have an issue with that.

          • Paul

            Maybe I’ve missed it, but were you writing about your concerns about censorship on other topics at youtube prior to it impacting you and your ad revenue?

          • Michael L Brown

            Again, the first concern is censorship; the second concern is unethical restricting of ad revenue funds.

          • Paul

            I’ll take that as a no, you didn’t write about their censorship until it impacted you. Youtube has been censoring other people and topics for quite some time, were you completely unaware of this? If you knew about it and censorship is your first concern then why didn’t you write about it before it impacted you? And if their censorship of you ends today will we ever hear again from you about youtubes censorship of others?

          • Kevin Quillen

            Paul, You owe Dr Brown an apology. While I disagree theologically many times with him, he has always stood up for right and the Gospel. I am sure he has paid a price for it too.

          • Patmos

            He made it about money being taken away for questionable reasons, not just money.

  • Roman

    With all the vomit you tube allows im shocked they would even look your way. Maybe if you spoke badly about women and used profanity and maybe punch out a few people on camera, you would qualify to be safe for all audiences.

  • GENUG

    YouTube is banning Christian god stuff. it’s blatant. Go to VidMe.YouTube is Google which is Goebbels State Propaganda – about 13 social media companies signed on to ban this stuff. Cass Sunstein wrote about this since 1995 – he wrote a paper for Bubba: “The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce” – moving the conversations in chat rooms (now FB, YouTube, Twitter…) thru trolls and infiltration by the government – “the nudge” as he writes. The social media compact is “the nudge” – BigBrother has taken over.

    • Nancy White

      This may be why comments I have written about Jesus have not been allowed to be posted.

  • phist

    What you’re describing sounds like there is some sort of battle between shadowy-type decision makers behind the scenes. All you can do is hope the ones on your side win.

  • Patmos

    YouTube is following the same path of cable television channels like MTV and ESPN: Start out as cool and hip, before spiraling downward into left wing propaganda garbage.

  • Nancy White

    And yet it is allowed (or quit the school) to teach kindergarteners about transgender and homosexual lifestyles.
    Please hurry for us Jesus.

Inspiration
The Solution for Shame
Melinda Penner
More from The Stream
Connect with Us